Conviction Overturned Due to Lack of Medical Corroboration and Witness Discrepancies
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of four individuals previously sentenced for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The case, originating from an incident reported in 1998, saw the appellants originally convicted and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha. However, the High Court found that the prosecution's case was fraught with inconsistencies and lacked corroborative medical evidence.
Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy delivered the judgment, highlighting that the conviction was primarily based on the testimony of the prosecutrix, which lacked the "sterling quality" required for a conviction without corroboration. The Court emphasized that significant contradictions existed in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly concerning the timing and location of the incident.
The Court noted that the medical report did not corroborate the alleged assault, as no injuries consistent with the claims were found on the victim. The prosecution also failed to establish the exact place and time of the incident, further weakening their case. Additionally, the delayed filing of the First Information Report (FIR) by four days without a satisfactory explanation cast further doubt on the prosecution's narrative.
The Court also found procedural lapses in the trial, particularly in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was noted that incriminating evidence was not adequately presented to the accused, potentially impacting their ability to mount a defense.
The appellants were represented by Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae, while the State was represented by Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor. The judgment brings to a close a legal battle that has spanned nearly three decades, with the Court ruling that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Bottom Line :
Conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC set aside due to lack of corroborative medical evidence, contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, and failure to establish the place of occurrence or time of the incident.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 376(2)(g), 34; Criminal Procedure Code Section 313; Indian Evidence Act Section 114A
Shaymdeo Uraon v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2965880
